Gold bars: Solicitor sent misleading letters
A solicitor, described by a district judge as a “dishonest fraudster” who “consistently lied” to the court and to his law firm, has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Gboyega Ajibola Okunniga’s dishonesty was “of the utmost seriousness” in that it breached his “fundamental duty” not to mislead the court or others.
Mr Okunniga, who qualified in 2010, worked as a consultant at Clifton Law Solicitors in Coventry from September 2018.
There was subsequently a dispute between him and the firm over his share of legal fees relating to ‘Mr and Mrs A’, clients and directors of ‘Company A’, a gold commodity trading company.
He issued proceedings at Coventry County Court in September 2020 to recover £9,600, but the law firm counterclaimed for fees owed to it.
In 2022, District Judge Gilmore found that Mr Okunniga had instructed Mr and Mrs A to make nine payments for legal services directly into his private bank accounts, which he then kept for himself.
Mr Okunniga submitted that the payments were made in respect of a separate business ‘merger’ outside of his employment by the firm, that had taken place between his company, Company X, and Company A.
Company X was not actually a company, but a trading name for Mr Okunniga’s consultancy business.
In court, Mrs A denied the existence of any merger and alleged that Mr Okunniga gave instructions for legal fees to be paid into his bank account directly because he was unhappy with Clifton Law’s fee-sharing agreement.
The court found the existence of the merger to have been fabricated and Mr Okunniga’s claim was dismissed; the judge awarded the fir £22,800 on the counterclaim. Mr Okunniga’s appeal was rejected.
The firm then obtained an interim charging order against Mr Okunniga’s marital property. He and his wife applied to set it aside on the basis that his wife was the sole beneficial owner under a 2017 declaration of trust.
DJ Gilmore held that the trust deed was a sham and that Mr Okunniga and his wife held the beneficial interest as joint tenants. The judge was also satisfied that the couple had lied.
The SDT stressed that, whilst it had regard to the judge’s findings, it reached its own conclusions on the facts.
It found that Mr Okunigga acted dishonesty by giving misleading information to the court and by “fabricating the existence” of the merger with Company A “in an attempt to explain why he received nine payments from clients into his personal bank accounts”, money that was owed to Clifton Law.
Describing Mr Okunniga as an “unreliable witness”, the SDT said it was “inconceivable” that he could believe that there was a merger.
Mr Okunniga, who represented himself, had argued that there was “no personal benefit to him in fabricating a ‘merger’ and thereby misleading the court”.
The SDT also found that he had issued invoices to Mr and Mrs A in 2019 and then demanded payment for outstanding fees allegedly owed to Clifton Law, when the firm had not authorised the invoices and the fees were not owed.
One of the invoices, purportedly on the firm’s letterhead, related to Mr Okunniga acting for Mr and Mrs A in the recovery of gold bars valued at $15m, for which he charged £25,000 plus VAT.
The tribunal described Rita Onwuka, the principal of Clifton Law, as “a clear and compelling witness”. It accepted her evidence that the gold bar recovery work was “completely outside the normal business of the firm” – and so was not insured – and she did not know about or authorise it.
It decided that Mr Okunniga “significantly overcharged Mr and Mrs A” and raised invoices and chased for payment without Clifton Law’s knowledge or consent.
Further, Mr Okunniga sent two knowingly misleading letters to airlines in January 2019 relating to a consignment of gold bars in their custody.
Mr Okunniga signed the letters in his capacity as “head of international trade and arbitration” at Clifton Law, a title and department that did not exist. Further, he gave the misleading impression that he had been instructed through Clifton Law and was permitted to operate in that specialised area of law.
Mr Okunniga denied the allegation “on the basis that it was at best a misunderstanding about job title”.
However, a further allegation relating to the enforcement proceedings brought by Clifton Law was rejected, with the SDT concluding on the balance of probabilities that the trust deed was not a sham.
The SDT said Mr Okunniga’s misconduct caused harm to Ms Onwuka, who was “engaged in lengthy litigious proceedings as a result”, and his actions “also caused distress to the firm’s clients”. The solicitor “did not show any insight into the nature or effect of his misconduct”.
Mr Okunniga was struck off. The SRA claimed over £59,000 in costs, but this was reduced to £10,000 on the grounds of the solicitor’s limited means.
Leave a Comment